Lord Chidgey: My Lords, it seems that, with the passage of time, the Burmese junta is less and less likely to be influenced by western concerns. I welcome the Minister's comment that Russia and China are key players in regional stability there, but could he assure us that every effort is being made to bring Russia and China to our way of thinking? The release of Aung San Suu Kyi is an essential precondition of any further steps forward, but it could also be a first step towards serious dialogue, provided that the international community looked at its objectives again to see where we can find opportunities to balance what is desirable with what is achievable.

Baroness Cox: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in the recent attacks on the Karen people, to which reference has been made, more than 18,000 more Karen have been forced to leave their homes and villages and live as displaced people in the jungle in appalling conditions, with no shelter, food and or medical aid? Would Her Majesty's Government therefore encourage DfID to support responsible aid organisations to take medical and other aid to those people, who otherwise are dying in ways that could be avoided?

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Leader agree that, if this House becomes electing, as she believes it should, it would in fact be just as legitimate as the House of Commons? Far from having a reduction in its powers, this House would have to share powers with the House of Commons, and the House of Commons would eventually have to accept that, whether it liked it or not.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, if coal is to have a future, the question of dealing with emissions will be an important part of that. It is interesting that Powerfuel Ltd, the company headed by Richard Budge, recently put forward proposals for bringing Hatfield colliery back into use and building alongside it a carbon-capture-ready integrated gasification combined-cycle power plant, doing so on a commercial basis supported by Russian money. That is an interesting development because it suggests that Richard Budge, at least, can see a commercial future in that area.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, many of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, and others are based on the view expressed by a number of noble Lords in Grand Committee to the effect that passive smoking carries very little, if any, health risk. When a lawyer says, "With respect", he means, "I do not agree with you"; when he says, "With great respect", he means, "You are talking nonsense"; and when he says, "With the greatest possible respect", he means, "You have gone off your head". With the greatest possible respect to the very distinguished Members of your Lordship's Economic Affairs Select Committee, I find the remarks made in its recently published report quite extraordinary and, indeed, inconceivable.
	The evidence that has been accumulated over the past five years has become increasingly powerful in demonstrating the devastating effect that passive smoking may have on the health of those exposed to it. Second-hand smoke is now classified as a class A substance—a known human carcinogen—by the US Environmental Protection Agency. Other class A carcinogens include asbestos, arsenic, benzene and radon. About 50 international studies of second-hand smoke and lung cancer risk in people who have never smoked have been published over the past 25 years. Most recently, in 2004, the World Health Organisation's International Agency for Research on Cancer reviewed the literature and concluded that second-hand smoke is cancer causing and that non-smokers living with smokers increase their lung cancer risk by approximately 20 per cent for women and 30 per cent for men. For non-smokers exposed in the workplace, the risk of lung cancer is increased by 16 to 19 per cent. The Government's own advisory committee on the effects of smoking, the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health, concluded that there is an increased risk of lung cancer for non-smokers of about 24 per cent.
	In Grand Committee, a noble Lord referred to the fact that Sir Richard Doll was quoted some time ago as saying that active smoking was harmful, but that second-hand smoke did not worry him. He said that as a throwaway remark when being interviewed on Radio 4's "Desert Island Discs" in February 2001. I knew Richard Doll very well and, some years ago, I had the privilege of succeeding him as warden of Green College, Oxford. In February 2005, just a month or two before he died, he wrote:
	"We first established the causal link between smoking and lung cancer in 1950, but the tobacco industry spent decades arguing that our results did not justify our conclusion . . . Now tobacco companies are using the same technique to undermine the conclusion that passive smoking causes fatal disease. The evidence that it does is clear",
	and incontrovertible. He continued:
	"As a responsible citizen, I believe that nobody should have to work in an atmosphere polluted by other people's smoke".
	The evidence to the effect that to create smoking and non-smoking areas in places where food is served may overcome that risk is not at all convincing. All the medical bodies that I have consulted, and a huge number of public bodies acting on behalf of the communities in which they live, have come to the conclusion that that will not be an effective solution to the problem and that the only way in which the public at large and the workers in the catering and public house industries can be protected is by banning smoking entirely in those enclosed spaces. For that reason, I certainly could not support the amendment, particularly as recent public surveys have, in response to questionnaire exercises, indicated that across the country, and particularly in my native north-east of England, where the problem is very serious, more than 70 per cent of the public at large wish to see this ban imposed, as in the Bill that stands before us for consideration.

Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I thought it possible that there might be some reference to the Economic Affairs Select Committee's report on risk management and therefore I thought I would take the earliest possible opportunity to repeat what we said in our report, not what I think most people who have probably not read the report will deduce as what we said. It was a report on the Government's management of risk in its widest sense. The report is favourable to the Government and states that they have rather good policies in relation to risks. We gave one or two examples, but the one that is clearly of interest to the House at this stage of the Bill is what we said about passive smoking.
	First, we said that we accept that there are health risks in smoking and that it is better not to smoke. Secondly, we said that there are health risks in passive smoking but that the issue is how much risk. This was not based upon our views, as one noble Lord on the other side of the Chamber said. Everything in our report was evidence based and anyone who cares to look at it will see that the people who gave evidence actually know what they are speaking about. We had evidence on this issue, particularly from Sir Richard Peto, the professor of medical statistics at Oxford University, who—if I may summarise what he said in his evidence—is in favour of banning smoking for entirely different reasons from the Government. He is in favour of banning passive smoking because that will make it so damn difficult for anyone to smoke anywhere that they will not smoke. That is his reason. But he said that the risks are small and difficult to measure.
	The Minister's colleague, Caroline Flint, also gave evidence. She pointed out to us that 95 per cent of all the deaths from cancer take place from smoking in the home. The Bill does not deal with smoking in the home. Indeed, the argument put to us is that it might actually increase smoking in the home because, in so far as people are not able to smoke in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, would like, they will smoke in their homes. So, in that sense, the Bill will increase the risk of cancer because more people will smoke at home and more children will be affected.

Lord Clinton-Davis: So what, my Lords? I do not care whether it was unanimous or not; it was wrong. The noble Lord did not speak about the infringement of the human liberties of the people who suffer from passive smoking, or any sort of smoking. Whether it occurs in the home or outside is irrelevant. I would support a conclusion that there should be no smoking in the home at all.
	I am not persuaded by the idea that what is proposed now represents an infringement of human liberty at all. Nor is the question of choice relevant. Does the victim of passive smoking have any choice? I think not. For that reason I also unreservedly support banning smoking in the workplace and in enclosed public places. I would go even further, but we are considering today what is in the Bill. The question of choice therefore represents a sort of blindfold to which we should not be subject at all.
	It has also been proposed that the Bill include other concerns. The fact that we do not deal with everything is no reason for not dealing with something. Therefore, although we ought to consider road vehicles on other occasions, on this occasion we are considering smoking. For that reason we should come to the conclusion that is consistent with pretty well all the medical and health organisations that have opined on this issue. Their views unmistakeably are that smoking, particularly passive smoking, is injurious to health.
	The noble Lord, Lord Monson, flies entirely in the face of the opinion of people well qualified to opine on these issues because it is part of their everyday experience. People such as nurses, doctors—and I am not talking only about consultants, but ordinary doctors—unreservedly, through their professional bodies, come to the view that smoking is harmful. It is a view that I agree with. I do not think that any noble Lord ought readily to fly in the face of the opinion of people such as those to whom I have referred.
	The issue has been well tried in Ireland, Scotland, New Zealand, New York and elsewhere. It would be idle to pretend that we can ignore the views of people as widely based as that. I admit readily that I am prejudiced about this because I smoked until 1992, when I became ill. I smoked cigars; I think I was wrong—I exposed people who had no choice about what I was doing.

Lord Vinson: My Lords, I declare a non-interest as a non-smoker, as someone who does not like smoking, has never wished to smoke and does not enjoy the company of people who are smoking, although I enjoy the company of smokers. I do not particularly like to draw swords with my neighbour, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, but there is another side to this: people's enjoyment of their social life. An Englishman's home is his castle and an Englishman's club is his home. We should not deny people the right to smoke in a segregated room in which the staff do not have to serve, where people can meet and damage their own health if they want to—where they are fully aware of the risk. It is quite wrong for us to protect people from their own foolishness.
	A member of staff may sign the fact that she does not wish to serve in a smoky zone and then be pressed into it late at night to clear up the dishes when the smokers have gone. To suggest that that small exposure to passive smoking—three or four minutes of old smoke—will lead to her rapid demise misses the whole question of the nature of poisons. The nature of poison is in the dose—the greater the dose, the greater the risk. Provided that there are adequate staff safeguards, we should not stop people doing what they wish to do in segregated rooms in their clubs, albeit that they are damaging their own health. This is indeed a freedom issue and I know that in my own constituency, where I live, many people are now deeply upset by this social deprivation—something that will be denied to them which they have hitherto had. This is a freedom issue of the first importance and I intend to vote for this measure.

Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of Cancer Research UK. It is the biggest cancer charity in the world and it employs more than 3,000 scientists, doctors and nurses, mostly in this country but also abroad.
	I was very interested in some of the points put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that in fact doctors are not always right. Of course, that is absolutely true. I do, though, draw a distinction between doctors and negligence in hospital—when they are taking firm action in operations, anaesthetics, drug giving, and so on—and those who are doing research. When it comes to the scientists and researchers, it is the body of opinion that matters. It is also the credibility of the individuals, who do the research, produce their reports and have their work peer-reviewed. Cancer Research UK has recently had two Nobel Prize winners: Sir Paul Nurse and, as of Saturday, in the Queen's Birthday Honours, Sir Tim Hunt.
	I want to address the very narrow point made by my noble friend Lord Jopling on ventilation. Cancer Research UK is absolutely convinced, and its research shows, that ventilation systems may remove the smell of smoke but they cannot effectively remove the harmful chemicals that it contains. Levels of air flow, equivalent to those produced by tornadoes and wind tunnels, would be needed for ventilation systems to remove the smoke effectively.
	On a practical basis, systems can cost tens of thousands of pounds to install, and they are difficult and costly to maintain. This can be a particular burden for non-profit-making private members clubs, and others. Reports have shown that many proprietors leave their ventilation systems switched off, because the running costs are so high. Recent research in venues in Sydney, Australia, has shown that designated no-smoking areas in hospitality venues provide at best partial protection, and at worst no protection at all, against the damaging effects of second-hand smoke. I have all the references for what I have said, but I will not bore the House with that right now.
	If it is a question of choice, then ventilation certainly has to work. I am absolutely convinced that it does not.

Lord Patel: My Lords, I was not going to go with the argument that my medical colleagues have already put across in case I was accused of colluding with my fellow medics.
	It is true that doctors make mistakes, but I defy anyone to produce evidence that, on balance, they do more harm than good—I look forward to receiving that evidence from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. It seems to me that those who are against the Bill accept the evidence that suggests that there is genuine harm not only from smoking but from second-hand smoke. They might not accept the level of the ill-effects but they accept that there is harm.
	So the argument now concerns choice and whether effective ventilation can be put in place to separate smokers and non-smokers. But whose choice are we talking about? Even the Economics Affairs Committee report states that the majority of the population by far is in favour of legislation to ban smoking in enclosed public places. When it comes to ventilation, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, gave the evidence: the kind of ventilation required to remove even 90 per cent of the harmful effects of second-hand smoke would be equivalent to that found in a wind tunnel. That is why ventilation is not being implemented in Italy and other countries where it was thought that it would work, and the cost would be prohibitive. So those who argue on the basis of choice and of ventilation being effective do not have a cogent argument. I shall not rehearse the health argument. I said before Second Reading that it is rather like burying your head in the sand. I was challenged on that, but that is what it is and I do not need to go over that argument.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, I rise to sum up on behalf of our Front Bench on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, presented me with a problem because I wish to start by putting on record my genuine and long-held admiration for my noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston. In the past 25 years, he is one of the people whose speeches I have followed with great care; they were always of great interest to me when he was expanding on liberalism and the need for Liberals to stand up for unpopular subjects. I am sorry to be the person on the Front Bench with whom he disagrees.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, asked about the Liberal view, and rightly cited the actions of my colleagues in the Scottish Executive. The Liberal view was best put by John Stuart Mill in chapter three of On Liberty, when he said:
	"Acts of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause do harm to others, may be, and in the more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled by the unfavourable sentiments, and, when needful, by the active interference of mankind. The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people".
	As the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, made clear, the evidence on passive smoking is becoming clearer all the time. I accept that some of the criticism of the Economic Affairs Committee has perhaps been overstated, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said, it is becoming increasingly evident from research that passive smoking has a harmful effect. I do not wish to go back over the arguments on ventilation because they have been adequately explained by others this afternoon, but I shall return to the question of choice.
	In our social life people are now becoming not only used to not smoking in public spaces, but are increasingly expectant that public spaces will be non-smoking. As the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, graphically showed, there are some people for whom there is no choice but to enter a public place to partake of an enjoyable social life with other people. There is always the choice for somebody who wishes to smoke to go outside, and increasingly they do so. Two weeks ago I was in Ireland where an unambiguous complete ban has been implemented. It is fair to say that it has been successful mostly because of its simplicity and clarity. Has it done irreparable harm to the social life of the Irish people? Absolutely not. There is no evidence of that whatever. In fact, it has possibly made it better. Pubs are now convivial places to which people go to enjoy extremely good food, and to which they can take children. The smoking ban has changed the nature of half of them.
	There is a danger in my noble friend's amendment, in that it allows the potential to use the provision of food as a means of getting round the regulations. It thereby sets up and causes health inequalities which now exist, but may well be exaggerated if we have a loophole in the future over whether or not somewhere provides food and, if it does, what its means are.
	To those who have talked about public opinion and, in particular, the nanny state, I say that it is increasingly evident that the private sector is well ahead of us on this. More and more coffee shops and restaurant chains are seeking to change their ways, way ahead of any legislation. Today's vote—as my colleagues will hope—to keep the Bill as it is, will not be detrimental to choice or the economy. It will, however, make an important difference to addressing health inequalities. That is a fundamental role of the state.

Lord Sandberg: My Lords, I was at school during the war, and about the only thing I learned—because we were distracted by the probability of getting killed—was how to smoke. So I am rather sad that the one thing I learned at school should now be so heinously voted against. My colleague's amendment is sensible and reasonable. I do not see why we should be killjoys in what we are doing today.
	Of course, no one pretends that smoking is good for you but, if it gives pleasure to people, we should not takes their pleasure away.

Lord Warner: My Lords, before turning to the amendment's deficiencies, I must, on behalf of the Government, respond to one or two of the points made during what I can only describe as almost a Second Reading debate.
	The provisions in Part 1 are based on robust evidence and the management of risk to health from second-hand smoke. Of course, important issues such as personal liberty and the regulation of business have been important in framing this policy. The risk to health, however, is the driving force behind this Bill. That is, ironically, the vital point that the Select Committee on Economic Affairs seems to gloss over in a slightly cavalier fashion.
	The evidence of the health risks of second-hand smoke is now extremely well established. The single medical expert that the committee sought evidence from was indeed Professor Sir Richard Peto, who has already been described as a distinguished medical epidemiologist and told the committee in his evidence that:
	"The definite statement is that some people are killed by breathing other people's smoke".
	The risk level is set out in the two reports of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health, of which Professor Sir Richard Peto is a member. In its 2004 report, the scientific committee concluded that there is an estimated overall 24 per cent increased risk of lung cancer in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke and a 25 per cent increased risk of heart disease. As a result, the committee advised that,
	"second-hand smoke represents a substantial public health hazard".
	It was not just Caroline Flint who said that. She repeated that evidence of a committee, one of the members of which gave evidence to the Select Committee.
	A number of noble Lords have, I suggest, rather pooh-poohed the evidence that I tried to set out on behalf of the Government in Committee. The evidence base is recognised not just in this country but internationally, not least by the 168 nations that are signatories to the World Health Organisation's framework convention on tobacco control. The evidence on the risk of second-hand smoke comes from across the world, and has been scrutinised and reviewed in great depth. The literature base is substantial and the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer report, Tobacco smoke and involuntary smoking, published in 2004, reviewed all the evidence of the health risks associated with smoking and second-hand smoke. It is over 1,400 pages long. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming, whatever people choose to say.
	A number of people, including the noble Lord, Lord Monson, have asked for choice and fair play. The Government are very interested in securing fair play for all those who suffer at the hands of second-hand smoke, such as all those with medical conditions like lung cancer, heart disease, asthma attacks, childhood respiratory disease and sudden instant death syndrome. Those are not myths; they are the facts of life in our country regarding people's exposure to second-hand smoke.
	The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, drew attention to the fact that his Select Committee's report was unanimous. I suppose that most noble Lords would pay tribute to his success as a Chief Whip in the past. I am not altogether surprised that he managed to achieve a unanimous report. He also drew attention, as have other noble Lords, to the fact that public bans on smoking may mean more smoking in the home.
	Let me give the House the evidence on that. International experience provides no evidence to support the view that smoke-free legislation will encourage more people to smoke at home; we know that bans encourage smokers to give up or to reduce the number of cigarettes that they smoke, which is a beneficial secondary effect. We also know that seven out of 10 people who smoke say that they want to give up. We have assessed the impact that a ban on smoking in public places would have in reducing smoking prevalence: up to 650,000 people would be affected, which would, thereby, have a beneficial impact of reducing smoking at home. Indeed, evidence from New York suggests that 100,000 people have quit smoking since the ban was introduced there. Recent research, reported by the Royal College of Physicians in the publication Going smoke-free points to a statistically significant increase in the percentage of smokers who banned smoking in their own home after smoke-free laws were introduced.
	Important research was published on 16 June in the Irish Medical Times, which reported a household survey that was conducted in Ireland before and after the introduction of smoke-free laws. Before the ban, 58 per cent of people allowed smoking in their homes, but after the workplace legislation came into effect, that figure fell to 50 per cent. The evidence points in absolutely the opposite direction as regards smoking in the home to that stated by a number of noble Lords.
	Perhaps I can correct the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, who cited the Chief Medical Officer's failure to take up his suggestion about conducting a study among airline pilots. The Chief Medical Officer has responded that he did not think that that would be helpful, because the research proposed by the noble Lord would not have resulted in a study of a scientific calibre that could be relied on; there were good grounds for not accepting the helpful suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, with permission, I would like to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a Statement about the European Council held in Brussels on 15 and 16 June. I would like to thank Chancellor Schuessel and the Austrian Government for their arrangements for the summit and for the way in which they conducted their presidency.
	"There were two parts to this Council. On the constitutional treaty, it was agreed that there would have to be a further period of reflection, because at present there is no consensus on how to proceed. A Europe of 25, not 15, soon to become 27, and in time enlarged still further, needs a modern set of rules to function effectively. Around 15 states have ratified this treaty, but of course, there have been the No votes in France and Holland. As a result, others, including the United Kingdom, have not proceeded with ratification. The German presidency, in the first half of 2007, will therefore consult member states and present a report to the European Council. Decisions will then be taken by the end of 2008. But it was made crystal clear that, in line with last year's conclusions, there can be no presumption about the outcome of this discussion.
	"The bulk of the conclusions of the Council, however, deal with the specific issues of most immediate concern to Europe's citizens. One of the key outcomes of a positive attitude towards Europe on the part of Britain was the election of President Barroso to the Commission. I welcome thoroughly his commitment to the Council to transmit direct to national Parliaments all new Commission proposals and consultation papers and to take due consideration of their views. This is an important boost to a long-held British concern over subsidiarity.
	"In addition, on better regulation, the Commission has already announced the withdrawal of some 70 pieces of legislation. The European Council invited the Commission to report by early 2007 on further progress—and, in particular, asked the Commission to make proposals by that time on how to reduce administrative burdens on businesses by 25 per cent. This, again, is a central British objective, on which we built alliances with other partners.
	"On the single market, the Council welcomed the agreement on the services directive; welcomed agreement on the competitiveness and innovation programme; and looked forward to the Commission's forthcoming review of the single market and proposals for completing it. The services directive, in particular, is expected to deliver some 600,000 jobs across the EU and add around €31 billion to the EU economy. I pay tribute to the work of British MEPs from both the Party of European Socialists and the European People's Party in securing the compromise necessary to allow it to pass.
	"The Council agreed a number of specific measures and initiatives to combat illegal immigration, designed to strengthen borders while improving co-operation with some of the main source countries of migrants and refugees. In particular, the Council agreed to implement regional protection pilot projects to protect refugees in their region of origin and therefore avoid the need for mass migration. We also agreed to intensify work on readmission agreements, so that across Europe failed asylum seekers can be more easily returned.
	"On energy, another of the Hampton Court initiatives, we welcomed and agreed to take forward proposals for an external energy policy, developed jointly by Javier Solana, the EU's High Representative, and the Commission. One of the priorities will be developing strategic partnerships with the main producer and transit countries, including an agreement with Russia.
	"The Council also agreed declarations on the western Balkans, Iran, Iraq, the Middle East peace process, Africa, Lebanon and Timor-Leste.
	"Finally, on climate change, the European Council committed itself to pursuing, in all the relevant multilateral organisations, an international goal consistent with the objective of a maximum global temperature increase of two degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels.
	"This was a European Council which focused on the practical policy-driven agenda which the UK has long advocated. It demonstrated yet again the benefits of positive engagement with Europe. I commend the outcome to the House".
	That concludes the Statement.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. Rarely has an EU summit attracted so little publicity, in glaring contradiction to the title of the first chapter of the presidency conclusions, which is "Europe Listens". Where is the evidence that EU leaders have listened in any way to the concerns of people about the trend towards more regulation and integration? Will the noble Baroness confirm that this summit agreed to more integration on immigration, asylum, criminal procedure, industrial policy, consumer protection and foreign policy? Where is all the rethinking in that?
	Was the noble Baroness the Leader of the House as surprised as I was that the conclusions made no reference to the rejection of the constitutional treaty by the people of the Netherlands and France, except in the Newspeak of paragraph 43 of the conclusions that:
	"Two Member States have been unable to ratify . . . [but] It is hoped that this process will be completed in line with the conclusions of June 2005".
	Is that the UK Government's view? Has nothing changed in the so-called "period of reflection"? The conclusions blandly declare that,
	"citizens remain committed to the European project".
	Is not the problem that the Brussels definition of the EU project is miles apart from the wishes of millions of EU and British citizens?
	The conclusions call for "concrete results" in achieving what the EU constitution proposed, but European electors rejected, by noodling inside the present system. Where is the listening there? Is that also the UK Government's view? It calls for a further report on a constitutional treaty in spring next year and necessary steps to legislation in 2008. Is that the UK Government's view? Do the Government want a new treaty?
	I am fully aware that no Government can bind their successor, but I hope that the noble Baroness will know the answer to this question. Is the commitment to resurrecting a treaty supported, not only by the Prime Minister, but by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
	Finally, will the Minister accept that there must be a referendum on any EU constitutional treaty and that the manifesto pledge to the electorate before the last election that they would be consulted must be good for the whole Parliament?
	Of course, there were things we supported at the summit, such as action on climate change, but what discussion was there of ensuring energy security? Was any concern expressed about a potential 60 per cent dependence on Russian gas?
	We very much support the enlargement of the EU, so we strongly welcome the accession talks with Turkey. For too long, this proud and great nation has been toyed with by the EU as if we were still living in 1683 and not a 21st century in which a model of secularist Islam offers a key to a more stable world.
	We have long supported greater openness and transparency at EU Ministers' meetings. Supporting that was a rare success for the Prime Minister over one of his Cabinet colleagues. The Minister may not know the answer to this question, but perhaps he could ask the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to open up UK Cabinet meetings in the same way. How fascinating that would be.
	Finally, I turn to regulation and criminal justice. On regulation, was it not a bitter disappointment that the best the summit could agree was that it might be possible to ask the Commission to make proposals in 2007 about the possibility of setting targets to reduce regulation? What a sad outcome, when businesses are groaning today about EU red tape. How can we have any confidence in a process that pays lip-service to deregulation but says that the acquis communautaire cannot be touched?
	On criminal justice, in 2003 the Europe Minister, Mr Hoon, said that ending the veto could,
	"change fundamental principles of our legal system . . . which we are not prepared to accept".
	So why do the Government now apparently have an open mind? Would it not be rash indeed to abolish the veto now? Will the Minister give a guarantee that Britain will not give up its veto in this vital area?
	The Government, over the past few weeks, have said that the system that they have been running for nine years is already in a dysfunctional mess at home, with Ministers making open attacks on civil servants, police and judges. Surely it would be madness to add to the mess by inviting European dictation to those same civil servants, police and courts. The ultimate responsibility to deal with terrorism must lie with the British Government. Abolishing the veto in these areas was a key part of the European constitution. Does the Minister understand that reintroducing changes such as these without a referendum is completely unacceptable? When will the Government take a stand against the integrationist tide and hold firm for the real alternative option, a flexible Europe? The last year has shown how Europe can live without a new constitution.
	However sweet the Austrian wine, is it not high time to cut through the dinner-table complacency, state categorically that the constitutional programme is finished, and that the UK will play no part in smuggling it in by the backdoor and will insist on the right of a referendum for the British people?

Lord McNally: My Lords, when such an amiable fellow as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, delivers such a negative and sour response to a European Council, surely it is time for the Government to realise that the Conservatives, for the time being at least, are a lost cause with regard to Europe. They long to wound, they fear to strike—and we shall continue to get statements, such as this one from their official spokesman, which at no time explain how an organisation that has expanded from six to 25 members and with ambitions to expand to 27 should conduct itself or have a rule book.
	Have the Government considered publishing a Green Paper, taking from the constitution the areas that they think could be brought forward? Let us have a debate about that, because otherwise we shall have either the Government reacting to what is going on in Germany or elsewhere across the channel or the Conservatives continuing to bring forward these hobgoblins to scare us about what is going on. We have to realise that the global context in which Europe exists is changing rapidly. We will have a world of Chinese, Indian and, perhaps, Brazilian economic super-powers. The idea that we can rest comfortably on a Conservative Party "stop the world, we want to get off" approach is plainly ludicrous. Let us take the debate to them on the grounds of giving Europe a rule book that will work.
	On the rest of the communiqué, we welcome the businesslike approach, the recognition of subsidiarity and the commitment to reducing burdens on business. We were a little bemused, as was the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, by news stories headed "UK U-turns on open meetings". How we ever got ourselves into that position, I do not know. It would be reassuring to know that the Government are committed, as these Benches are, to far greater transparency in the way Europe does business. We believe—as we thought the Government believed—that that would be one way of preventing the Conservatives and their allies in the media misleading the British people about the reality of doing business in Europe.
	Let us get the realities about the approach to immigration into the open. If we are to deal with immigration we need specific co-operation in Europe and British activity in areas such as north Africa. Of course, we have naval capacity in Gibraltar at that end of the Mediterranean. Is it proposed that Britain should get physically involved in control activities? Are we talking directly to the north African Governments concerned about this problem? The Council agreed to declarations on the western Balkans, Iran, Iraq, the Middle East peace process, Africa, Lebanon and Timor-Leste. Does anybody on the Official Opposition Benches believe that Britain would have any impact on any of these global problems without the strength and authority we get from membership of the EU?
	If we want to play a part in the 21st century, we will have to do so with our natural allies in a European Union that works. That is why we have also supported enlargement. Would the Minister not agree that the British people need reminding again and again of Europe's most amazing transformation into a Europe committed to democracy and the process of law? This has been undertaken—from Spain, Portugal and Greece onwards—by a European Union which has demonstrated to the world that it is possible to settle even the most intractable differences by political process. That is what we should all encourage.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I begin with the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, about his surprise at the negative and sour response of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is generally negative in our debates about the European Union, but his jokes are usually a little better than they were today. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, raised a number of issues, including regulation, the purpose of the European Union and the constitutional treaty. I will deal with each of them in turn.
	The Statement said that there are proposals for the withdrawal of 70 pieces of legislation, and there will be further work on the regulation issue in the coming years. On the European Union more generally, part of the importance of our being part of the European Union is clearly to get added value in areas where we can work together. I think that the examples given in the documents coming out of the Council are important indeed. Migration is one example, and the noble Lord asked about criminal justice and the use of the veto in the criminal justice area. Migration and criminal justice are issues in which we need to get the added value that comes from working with our European Union partners. We have made it clear that we are able to opt in or opt out of specific proposals on criminal justice. The noble Lord knows well that we need partnerships in the areas of terrorism and drugs. Those are global problems with global reach. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, spoke about the global context in which Europe exists and the fact that the context is changing rapidly. These are not issues we can tackle alone.
	The issue of energy security remains important. I welcome the commitment that the noble Lord made to enlargement, particularly with respect to Turkey. As he will recall, we began accession negotiations with Turkey under our presidency. As for a flexible Europe, that is precisely what the Lisbon agenda and the Hampton Court agenda are designed to deliver.
	The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked about the possibility of a Green Paper. That is not a matter that I have heard discussed but I will take it back to my colleagues. However, I recognise that we will need institutional change to manage a Europe of 25 or 27. The institutions that we have in place were put in place for a much smaller organisation.
	The Government's position on the constitutional treaty has not change. We have consistently said that we will hold a referendum on the constitutional treaty if there is a constitution to vote on. There is not one at the moment.
	The noble Lord, Lord McNally, raised the issue of transparency. My understanding is that we, the United Kingdom Government, raised concerns about moving too quickly on the transparency issue. It is not that we are against transparency, and indeed the Council agreed an overall policy on it—the main effect of which will be to open to the public all deliberations on co-decided legislation and in other areas. The Council also agreed to assess the impact on the effectiveness of the Council's work after a six-month period.
	I think we are all agreed that we need a proper system of managed migration. This is not just a bilateral issue, or an area in which the United Kingdom can discuss with our partners on a one-to-one basis. What we are doing at the European Union level is extremely important.
	I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that the positives need to be stressed. What we have managed to achieve from the European Union in the spread of democracy and the rule of law would not have been deliverable without the European Union. The peace and security which we see in Europe today is very much a result of that.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, with respect to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on the tone of the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the Conservative foreign affairs spokesperson in another place, that of course splits in the Conservative Party on Europe are not new.
	On the conclusions on enlargement and absorptive capacity, I can confirm that this is not a further criterion. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, will know that there are some in the European Union who are sceptical about future enlargement, and they want a greater focus on the EU's ability to absorb new members. It is important to say to the House that the idea of absorption capacity is now more than a decade old, and it has not inhibited the progress of enlargement so far. It is certainly not the intention that it should be a new criterion.
	There is a commitment that northern Cyprus should come closer to the European Union on the issues of aid and trade. I do not have any further information on that, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, knows a lot more about this issue, given his background, than I do. If I can help the House further in any other way, I will of course write and put a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, my noble friend might not be surprised if I were to say that some of us would not on this occasion echo the words of my noble friend Lord Anderson of Swansea in saying that this was a non-event. In a few years' time, the fact that Council meetings will be televised will be seen as a watershed. I know that it is on the back of the fiasco of the constitution, but unfortunately—some of us might think that it is unfortunate—the demos nowadays to a large extent is the television. We ought to reflect that although there are obvious concerns that people have to speak for the television, this House some 20 years ago managed to get over its initial worries about that.
	On the broader question of the constitution, I was one of those who apparently echoed the feelings of Jacques Delors, when he said to his successor, "Please do not call this damn thing the constitution". It is to some extent semantics. Regarding the framework for enlargement, obviously we need to have different rules as we go along. I am even a bit sceptical about a Green Paper; as if there is ever going to be a once-for-all end to what this animal is. It has evolved. Only a few weeks ago, the Conservative Party was very strong on the need to have a really integrated energy approach to the former Soviet Union. That was not really high on the agenda a few months ago. We have all welcomed the results—the Statement it is referred to as a compromise—on the services directive. As one of those with a trade union background, I was a bit worried about some of the principles of the early drafts of the services directive; so that is welcome.
	It is very good that Europe is not now going to be seen as a secret society. Pragmatic work will go on. Annex 6 notes the importance of the EU-Africa partnership on migration and development. I am quite sure that in 10 years' time that will be seen to be an enormously important topic.

Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, there are those of us—I am one of them—who are quite pleased if a Council meeting is a non-event. Not because we do not want anything to happen, but because it is one of the weaknesses of Europe that there always has to be some enormous project—unless there is an enormous project, things go wrong. That is certainly not my view, so I would have no word of criticism on that.
	There remains an institutional issue, on which I would like to hear an even clearer view from the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. Transparency is not quite the right word, when one talks about how the Council of Ministers of the European Union should operate. With the peculiar language that was introduced at the beginning of the process, in the Treaty of Rome, the Council of Ministers is in part a legislature. Incidentally, the Commission is, in part, a parliament. It has some of the parliamentary rights that the US Congress has—making proposals, even a monopoly, in theory, of making proposals.
	When you have a legislature, in a democratic context, it is not about transparency, it is an utter necessity that this legislature meets in public and can be checked by the public. Can one be sure that this traditional British position is still upheld, and that nothing occurred at the recent Council meeting which detracts from that understanding of how legislatures should operate?

Lord Naseby: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 is essentially probing in nature. In a sense, it is quite tightly drawn. Since we had a pretty free-ranging debate on the previous amendment, I will keep specific to this particular amendment, in the hope that your Lordships will follow suit. The key point about this amendment is that, originally, the conditions for the erection of any form of building or attachment to premises were on the face of the Bill. It was then withdrawn from the Bill and put into regulations—and, of course, we do not yet know what the regulations are. In addition, we have Clause 4, which gives the Government virtually a blank cheque. That is because they can designate anywhere, in effect, non-smoking.
	In addition, the definition of these attachments has been changed. Originally it was put down, in consultation terms, as 70 per cent of the notional roof and wall area, and now we are told it is to be 50 per cent only of the notional roof and wall area. I am sure the Government will recognise that no one in the commercial world will spend a penny on planning any form of extension or new building, unless they know the conditions beforehand. While the Minister in Grand Committee maintained that the trade was broadly well aware of what the regulations were about, there has been evidence since—particularly, one has to say, from the smaller licensed premises—that it is singularly unaware. That is a concern, because it is the smaller licensed premises—either in the rural or perhaps the more industrialised areas of our country, where perhaps they even have no car park—that will face real problems in providing anything outside the main pub.
	Any trader will almost certainly have to obtain planning permission. It is quite likely that a significant number will have to get listed building consent. If you go for planning permission, at a minimum, that has to go out for consultation, in whatever field you are in. At that point there can be objections, or the committee can decide to delay it for another two months, three months or whatever it may be. Just because you put in for planning permission and you are told your case is coming up in two or three months' time, there is no certainty that you will know at the end of that time whether your proposals have been successful.
	In Grand Committee, the Minister also described the example of Scotland and stated in broad principle that it had been successful. The more one digs, however, the easier it is to see that the big boys were successful and those who hit the most difficulties were the small boys. In addition, since Grand Committee we have heard about the experiences of not just the licensed trade but others with the Licensing Act 2003. We have heard about the genuine difficulties that it has caused by the continually changing interpretations between one local authority and another.
	All this leads one to believe that, if the Government believe in joined-up government, as I genuinely believe they do, one must give the trade time to undertake the changes—there is no argument about the changes going through now; they seem likely to go through. The combination of a failure to provide clarity through essential definitions in the Bill—in other words, they are still in the regulations—and the insistence of Ministers on bringing the smoke-free provisions into force in 2007, one year earlier than was originally proposed, will cause great difficulty. I wish to be objective about this. If 25 per cent of people want to smoke, and if landlords and other owners of licensed premises want to make provision for these customers, it seems only sensible to give them a reasonable length of time in which to do it. My amendment tries to give the Government a means of achieving that.
	I hope that the Minister will be able either to tell us either that the regulations are imminent, in which case that is some progress, or, if they are not, perhaps that he will seriously consider whether he is nailing his flag to the mast of the middle of 2007. He will recognise that there are genuine difficulties. Whether it is late 2007 or early 2008 does not really matter: the most important dimension is to get this right and to ensure that smaller publicans, in particular, who do not exist on a very large margin of income, have an opportunity to amend their premises to meet these needs. I beg to move.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, about 40 years ago, I failed to persuade the Law Lords that working men's clubs should be treated as public places for the purpose of colour bars. As a result of that, in the Race Relations Act 1976, the Government, which I served, decided to overrule the Law Lords and ensure that a colour bar was unlawful, whether in a private members' club or otherwise. What I learnt from that experience is of some relevance today; it is the great difficulty in distinguishing between those clubs that are very private indeed—such as the Garrick Club, to which I used to belong—and clubs that are not very private but are still clubs in law, such as working men's clubs. There are thousands of working men's clubs and they are, in practice, but not in law, indistinguishable from pubs. If this amendment were passed, we can be quite sure that there would be a drift from pubs to working men's clubs.

Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I support this amendment. I wish that I could persuade your Lordships, even your medical Lordships, to think about risk in a statistical manner. I know that this is a very boring subject which has nothing to do with manifesto commitments, but it is the essence of the rationale of the Bill. I accept that there is a risk from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. The question is how big the risk is.
	Let me go very briefly through just one argument. It is generally estimated that the risk of lung cancer among the general population is 1 per 10,000, which is 0.001 per cent. It has been argued that the risk among non-smokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke goes up by 25 per cent. When that is bandied around, it sounds like a large number and looks like a significant increase. It is a significant increase in the risk, but from a very low base: a 25 per cent increase on 1 in 10,000, or 0.0025 per cent. If I now take the Minister's argument, accept that ventilation systems are not perfectly effective and assume that they are only 50 per cent effective, the risk of getting lung cancer from ETS falls to 0.00125 per cent. Let us look at it in millions, which may be a bit easier to understand. The risk of getting lung cancer among the general population is 100 per 1,000,000. A 25 per cent increase in the risk brings it up to 125 per 1,000,000. A 50 per cent reduction in the risk because of improved ventilation brings it down to 112.5 per 1,000,000, and that is the risk of getting lung cancer, not dying from it. This is ordinary, simple statistical thinking.
	However, the main point is that, given that the risk of lung cancer among the general population is so low, the increased risk is statistically insignificant. Technically, it falls within the margin of statistical error; that is, it is too low to register on the statistical radar screen. Now, on the basis of a statistically insignificant risk, people are to be forbidden by the state to set up genuine membership clubs that allow members to smoke. Even on the wildly unrealistic assumption made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, that membership clubs that allow smoking will be staffed entirely by non-smokers, the risk to non-smoking staff is so minute as not to be worth thinking about, at least by the Government. I accept that the avoidance of premature death is of high moral significance, but it should not necessarily be the object of public legislation. That is going over the top, which is why I support the amendment wholeheartedly.

Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I had not intended to engage your Lordships' attention in this debate until I heard three quite extraordinary speeches from the Benches behind me. The first was made by a noble Lord who clearly is a medical expert. I would not dream of challenging his medical views one iota; it would be a presumption to do so. However, it seemed to me that the noble Lord displayed, at the same time as great medical knowledge, a rather limited acquaintance with the way in which British society runs. He said that we did not have the right to "impose" our smoke on other people. No one has to join or work in a club; no one has to work here; no one is imposing on anyone at all. The quite extraordinary concept that driving along a motorway is in any way comparable with going into members' club leaves me speechless. I am only sorry that my noble friend's amendment is less ambitious than I would have loved it to be, but I totally support it.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, it will not surprise your Lordships to know that I oppose this amendment. I hope very much that the House will reject it. I should declare my interest as a trustee of the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation. As many of your Lordships are aware, Roy Castle was a much loved and popular entertainer who contracted lung cancer from the effects, so he and his widow believed, of working in smoky pubs. He never smoked, but he contracted lung cancer and tragically died of it. When he set up the Lung Cancer Foundation, he was determined that as much as possible should be done not only to treat people who are diagnosed with lung cancer, but also to persuade people that others should not die in the same horrible way as he did.
	We are not talking about a small section of the British community—the private membership clubs. As my noble friend Lord Pendry pointed out, there are something like 20,000 of them. An estimate was given by a Conservative MP on 14 February that the number of employees who work in those clubs is 165,000 or more. That was not denied by the Secretary of State, so we can imagine that it is a realistic figure. Clubs are not run by one or two volunteers in country areas. They are serious places of employment. In many localities, they are run alongside the local pub, wine bar and restaurant.
	We must bear two things in mind. First, taking account of the debate that we had on the earlier amendment and the very decisive decision that your Lordships took about the risks of second-hand smoke and the undesirability of maintaining smoking in restaurants and pubs, as well as the provision for private areas for smokers, we must ask whether we have a right to say that that law does not apply to private members' clubs. My noble friend Lord Rosser alluded to a number of examples where the law naturally applies to private members' clubs. The House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for pointing out the excellent work that he did to ensure that our race relations legislation applies equally to private members' clubs. I only regret that the Private Member's Bill that I introduced in your Lordships' House to eliminate sex discrimination in private members' clubs did not get passed in the other place. However, I remind noble Lords that it went through your Lordships' House.
	The main issue is whether employees are entitled to protection. The special nature of clubs was the basis of a letter that I received from the secretary of a clubs trade association, which said that they are special places and deserve a special place in British society. Up to a point that may be so. However, is anyone suggesting that if a club is infested with asbestos, the club management can say to the people who work there, "Don't worry about this; you do this at your own risk and we will not allow the normal health and safety legislation to apply to you when we ask you to take it out"? Of course, we would not do that. Given that your Lordships are clearly of the view that second-hand smoke is dangerous, the protection of workers in clubs is also important.
	My noble friend Lord Pendry referred to the Labour Party election manifesto. At the end of last week, he was kind enough to write to us on these Benches drawing our attention to that letter. I suspect that some of my colleagues were a little surprised to discover on reading Friday's Guardian that the organisation and circulation of that letter had been funded by the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association, which is not a body one normally associates with Labour Party policy. But, if we put that to one side for a moment, the party manifesto needs to be addressed. The noble Lord, Lord Pendry, was right to refer to it.
	The House must take account of what the Government did once they had been re-elected and once they had decided to embark on legislation on smoking and health. They had already given a commitment that they would consult on these provisions, and they consulted over the course of last summer. This test of public opinion, I would stress to your Lordships, is crucial. Fifty-seven thousand people responded to that consultation. According to the Department of Health, the vast majority of them—four-fifths—called for the proposed policy in the Labour Party manifesto to be changed to a complete ban on smoking in all enclosed public places and workplaces. The Department of Health added that the vast majority of those responding believed that, as membership clubs are workplaces, there should be no exemptions.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am always keen to help the House be better informed on this subject. Those who attended the Grand Committee, which is not very many in this House who are speaking with great authority on this subject, would have learnt that we consulted a wide range of stakeholders and interests after the election, many of whom reflected the views of a much larger group of people. There were 57,000 replies. These were replies not from individuals but from major organisations. I can satisfy the noble Lord's thirst for knowledge in this area by sending him a copy of those documents so that he is better informed on this issue. As my noble friend Lord Faulkner is saying so eloquently, they demonstrate that a very large number of people and organisations in this country took a different from that which had prevailed when the manifesto was drafted.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I wish to speak very briefly on this and to take up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. As regards the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, about the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, and getting assistance from the TMA, he will realise that many of the briefings which have been provided to Members on all sides of the House have been from ASH and other anti-smoking organisations which have been subsidised to the extent of £2,691,848 by the Government over the past five years. That is a yearly average of £538,369 from the public purse. We all get help from time to time from various organisations and the TMA is just as entitled as the Government to subsidise briefings that are made in relation to discussions in this House.
	My point about the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, concerns the question of the manifesto commitment. I really must say something in support of the Government here because they did in fact try to honour their manifesto commitment. The original Bill they put before the House of Commons was, of course, honestly in accordance with their manifesto commitment. So the Government did their best. But, I am afraid, the House of Commons—and this was carried by Labour Members of Parliament—decided otherwise.
	The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and others at the Committee stage tried to persuade me and others that a manifesto commitment could be overturned by Back-Bench Members of the House of Commons. But I have to remind the House that Back-Bench Members are just as committed to the manifesto as Front-Bench Members. I just want to correct the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and to say that the Government did at least try to uphold the manifesto commitment. It was unfortunate that it was spoilt by the Secretary of State for Health who, after recommending the Bill to the House of Commons, actually voted against it. That is a great pity.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I was so taken aback by the support for the Government of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that I almost dozed off. I apologise.
	Amendment No. 5 would reinstate the possibility of exempting membership clubs from the smoke-free provisions, as a number of noble Lords have said. I have to remind noble Lords that the issue of whether or not private members clubs should be exempt from the smoke-provisions was the subject of a free vote at the Report stage in the other place. The clear view that was expressed there was that private members clubs—and, of course, other licensed premises—should be treated in the same way as other public places and workplaces. On the first vote, the majority in favour of extending the ban to membership clubs was 200; on the second vote on whether the ban should extend to membership clubs and all other licensed premises the majority grew to 284. In short, the House of Commons took the view that the legislation should go further than the position in the Labour Party's manifesto in the interests of the public health.
	I am not trying to disguise that fact. That was the decision that was taken in the other place. It is the Government's firm view that that was the right decision, both in terms of public health and in reflecting public opinion.
	A number of noble Lords have referred to the issue of why the situation changed. My noble friend Lord Faulkner cited the change in public opinion reflected in the post-election consultation. We have always said as a government that we would listen to public opinion on the smoke-free provisions in the Bill. That is why we offered a public consultation after the election. Our original proposals offered a balance between minimising the risk to workers and non-smokers whilst retaining some places for smoking. However, as I said earlier, we listened to many different views inside and outside Parliament and the growing opinion in England in support of a more comprehensive set of measures.
	At the time when the Labour Party's manifesto was drafted, public support for smoke-free pubs and bars was not as strong in England as to warrant comprehensive legislation. It was, as I think a number of noble Lords have said, both today and at the Committee stage, about 50 per cent in favour of a ban. A large majority of the population in England now support a law to make pubs and bars entirely smoke free. While only about half the population supported entirely smoke-free pubs and bars in England April-May 2004, in under two years—that is, by the end of 2005—that proportion of support for a complete ban had risen to two-thirds and looked as though it was continuing to rise.
	It shows great credit that the Government are prepared to listen to that changing mood on something which a number of noble Lords in this House have said is about culture. The culture of public attitude is changing on this issue. I accept that it may not be changing in one or two places in this House quite as quickly as public opinion, but it is changing in this particular area. The other place voted to create a level playing field in the hospitality sector both in economic terms and, importantly—as a number of noble Lords have said—in terms of protecting the health of workers and patrons.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, made clear, this amendment would create unfair competition for a large section of the hospitality industry. All pubs, bars and restaurants would have to become smoke-free, while the membership club next door could continue to permit smoking. Private clubs with bars frequently compete with pubs in their local area. It is understandable then that the pub trade is strongly opposed to this amendment. In an editorial on 26 January, the Morning Advertiser—the newspaper of the pub industry—recommended that,
	"the 20,000 members clubs in England and Wales must operate on the same lines as our pubs. If they do not, the Government will have created an explosive situation that could tear communities apart in many regions of the country. The trade must now switch its focus to persuading the Government that only a total ban is fair".
	The amendment would also result in disparities in protection from second-hand smoke for workers or patrons in membership clubs compared with those in other hospitality venues. Work in a membership club is similar, if not identical, to work in other hospitality venues. That is the reality of the position in most clubs, as a number of noble Lords have correctly identified. Yet this amendment would mean that a person working behind the bar in a membership club would be expected to breathe hazardous second-hand smoke while a person working behind the bar in a pub would be protected under the law. That is the situation that we would create if we passed this amendment. I know which side of the argument I and the rest of the Government want to stand on.
	In a press notice on 27 October 2005, the British Institute of Innkeeping stated that the pub trade,
	"strongly opposes the proposal that members' clubs are exempt from the ban. If the basis for banning smoking is to protect staff working in licensed premises, those working in members' clubs deserve the same protection. Allowing smoking in members' clubs would lead to a migration of drinkers from local pubs into the members' clubs, which could essentially become smoking clubs. This loss of custom to small licensed premises could drive them out of business".
	That is the industry and not some nanny state speaking on these issues.
	The Bill will ensure a level playing field for the hospitality industry, equal protection from harm for all workers in the hospitality industry and consistency with smoke-free legislation in Scotland. A bit of consistency in that area is no bad thing.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I welcome these amendments and thank the Minister for responding so positively to the debate that we had in Grand Committee on the issue of theatrical and other sorts of performance. The concession is very much appreciated not only by me but, as the noble Baroness said, the theatrical community as a whole. I have a couple of questions. I take it that, in Amendment No. 7, paragraph (a) of new subsection (4A) means precisely what it says and that the list of performances mentioned there is not meant to be exhaustive. For example, opera is not mentioned. If a performance of "Carmen" were to include, as it often does, the factory of women smoking in Act One, that would presumably be covered by the exemption, as, I take it, would smoking in any other sort of performance, provided that it was appropriate in terms of its artistic integrity.
	Secondly, I note that paragraph (b) in Amendment No. 7, which refers to rehearsals, states:
	"if the regulations so provide".
	I hope very much that they will so provide. Actors are professional people. They need to rehearse fully in order to give of their best. If they need to smoke as part of a performance they should be permitted to do so in rehearsal as well.
	I very much welcome the fact that the Bill at least allows the possibility of rehearsals to be exempted, but has a decision been taken on this and, if it has not, will the Minister look as sympathetically as possible on this aspect of the issue?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and others raised the issue of whether paragraph (a) in Amendment No. 7 is exhaustive—it is not. Opera would be included where it is part of the artistic integrity of the performance. The exemption in paragraph (a) applies to the performer not the place, so filming on location would be covered where appropriate.
	I must say to my noble friend that I cannot conceive of any set of circumstances at the moment where product placement would qualify in terms of artistic integrity, but I am happy to put that in writing to her.
	There is provision for rehearsals to be dealt with in the regulations. There will need to be full consultation with the industry in this area. I know that there are some concerns on the part of Equity, for example, that rehearsal rooms and other areas in the theatre should not cause their members to be exposed to second-hand smoke. There will have to be a full discussion with the industry about the precise phrasing of the regulations, but this is an area where we stand by our decision to give exemption on the basis of artistic integrity in relation to particular performances.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, we know that Clause 4 enables the making of,
	"regulations designating as smoke-free any place . . . that is not smoke-free under",
	Clause 2, subject only to the national authority being,
	"satisfied that, without the designation, persons present there would be likely to be exposed to smoke".
	Responding to amendments to this proviso in Grand Committee, the Minister undertook to come back on Report with an amendment raising the threshold for using the power, which he has done. However, it is still arguable that Clause 4 could enable smoking to be prohibited in an individual's home, which is not a work or public place but, in terms of Clause 4(1), is not,
	"smoke-free under section 2".
	It is well known that banning smoking in the home is an objective of the most ardent anti-smoking activists. Indeed, we heard this afternoon from the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that he falls into that category. So regardless of the formal expressions of the right to a private life expressed in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is in any event subject to the UK's continued adoption of the convention and—this is important—to the right not being claimed to be overridden by health reasons, it would be preferable to put beyond any doubt the fact that regulations made under Clause 4 may not designate an individuals' home or accommodation as smoke-free.
	In Grand Committee, the Minister said:
	"Premises that are to be exempt will remain exempt indefinitely".
	Unfortunately, he went on to say,
	"but we will review the legislation, including exemptions, after three years".—[Official Report, 24/4/06; col.GC22.]
	Can the Minister tonight be absolutely crystal clear to the House that everyone's home will be exempt indefinitely? I beg to move.

Lord Chidgey: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are planning in response to the recent report of the Africa All-Party Parliamentary Group, The Other Side of the Coin: The UK and Corruption in Africa.
	My Lords, we speak readily of welcoming the new era for the African continent in which we, in the old industrialised world, are committed to supporting new initiatives, investment and enterprise within and between nations that have been overlooked and neglected for too long. But if we are to do that, we must face head-on that scourge of Africa—the culture and practice of institutionalised corruption—and we must recognise that the UK, among others, is part of this corruption process. We must look at the other side of the coin. I therefore welcome this debate with your Lordships on the report of the Africa All-Party Parliamentary Group, The Other Side of the Coin: The UK and Corruption in Africa.
	The report has gained the attention of the national and international press. It has been highly complimented by the South African Finance Minister. I presented a copy myself to the President of Botswana and his Cabinet, where it was also well received. I therefore hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to set out our Government's response to the recommendations made in the report. In that context, I declare an interest as a vice-chairman of the Africa All-Party Parliamentary Group. I should like to acknowledge the contribution made to the group's work by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, both of whom are here tonight and I understand will contribute later.
	The Africa All-Party Parliamentary Group inquiry into corruption and money laundering recognises that institutionalised corruption and the attendant capital flight present a huge obstacle to development in Africa. The report concentrates on the United Kingdom primarily because of the group's United Kingdom parliamentary reference. The group's wish is to see the United Kingdom in the vanguard of international efforts to address this issue, recognising our increasing overseas development assistance. Our Government, particularly DfID, were helpful to the group in bringing together and providing detailed written evidence. The group welcomed the Government's commitment to produce a consolidated cross-Whitehall response, inferring at least increasing cross-departmental working on these matters.
	The report cannot be exhaustive, but there are three areas where in particular the UK should contribute to the fight against corruption in Africa: first, tackling the supply side of corruption—bribe payments and mechanisms in international trade and credit that facilitate corruption; secondly, tackling the laundering of the proceeds of corruption; and, thirdly, safeguarding aid to ensure that it does not become caught up in corruption or inadvertently support corrupt leaders.
	The World Bank estimates that some $1 trillion is paid globally in bribes each year. The sums embezzled or stolen from public funds and assets by corrupt officials and the unquantified volume of fraud within the private sector could well triple the overall scale of global corruption. Corruption hits and hurts the poorest people hardest. It obstructs development. It fetters business growth. In a survey of nine African countries, the World Bank ranked corruption as the major impediment to their development. The money lost through corruption has a knock-on effect on development. The indirect effects include losses in investment, in private sector development and in economic growth. Where corruption becomes endemic, development is stifled. The World Bank estimates that where good governance and corruption control have been firmly established, the long-term dividend can be as much as a three to fourfold increase in income per capita, together with an extra 2 per cent to 4 per cent in annual economic growth. Although corruption is and must be seen as a global problem, Africa has gained a particularly bad reputation for corruption from the highest level down through the system. The continent as a whole suffers, with 10 of the 20 most corrupt countries to be found in that continent.
	Africa also suffers a sort of double whammy, where the proceeds from corruption are then banked or spent outside of the continent. Capital flight is a huge financial problem for Africa. Estimates of the total amount of illicit proceeds coming out of Africa are, by their nature, not precise, but they are thought to be in the range between $100 billion to £200 billion each and every year, a sum that totally dwarfs aid and debt relief to the continent. Moreover, most of the outflow of illicit funds is permanent, with as much as 80 per cent to 90 per cent of it not returning from those shady accounts tucked away in the world's financial centres.
	The organisation Transparency International defines corruption as,
	"the abuse of entrusted power for private gain".
	Within our report, corruption is considered to include offering, soliciting and accepting bribes. The report points out that embezzlement through mechanisms which include siphoning off funds to non-existent companies and through fake and mispriced transactions is rife throughout much of Africa. Up to 60 per cent of transactions are reckoned to be mispriced, with an average of 11 per cent being skimmed off the top. Together with fake transactions, they account for an annual flight of capital in excess of $150 billion.
	It is abundantly clear that much needs to be done in our own backyard if we are to contribute in any significant way to tackling corruption from the other side of the coin. In its report, the group highlighted six out of 38 recommendations to the Government as key candidates for action. Of these I will emphasise just three.
	The first is to rigorously enforce existing laws and sanctions against international bribery, corruption and money laundering. The issue here is enforcement, as the problem is that investigations are complicated and expensive, while prosecutions are difficult. Yet we now have the Serious Organised Crime Agency: its priorities must embrace corruption and not allow it to be sidelined by concerns over illegal drugs and terrorism, however important and relevant those may be.
	Secondly, I emphasise the recommendation that the Government should appoint an anti-corruption champion for a two-year period, to co-ordinate policy coherence and implementation across Whitehall and to work with devolved Executives, Crown dependencies, overseas territories and our international partners. I would like particularly to hear from the Minister whether the Government will consider this proposal from the group seriously. The champion could be a Minister or an official with clout within the financial and business sectors—such a person could, I suggest, certainly bang a few heads together to get something moving.
	The third recommendation that I want to emphasise suggests bringing to Parliament a new anti-corruption Bill before the end of 2006, to address the concerns raised by the Joint Committee about the 2003 draft Bill. The Minister will be aware that the Joint Committee severely criticised the Government's 2003 draft Bill, concluding unanimously—from all parties and in both Houses—that it would not be understood by the police, prosecutors, jurors or the public. Most important, they concluded that it would not be understood by the business and public sector communities.
	It is therefore welcome that the Government have relented and initiated public consultation. In parallel to this process and to the work of the Africa All-Party Parliamentary Group, the Minister will be aware that Transparency International has sponsored the preparation of a draft corruption Bill that meets many of the legislative objectives of the group's report. That Bill was introduced in another place under the 10-minute rule by Hugh Bayley MP, chairman of the Africa All-Party Parliamentary Group.
	In consultation with group colleagues and Transparency International, I have checked with the Public Bill Office, which has confirmed that it is in order to introduce the same draft corruption Bill in this House. In the event that pressures on the Government's legislative programme prevent Ministers from progressing with the draft Bill in the other place, I plan to bring it forward in this House as a Private Member's Bill after the summer Recess. That will at least allow your Lordships the opportunity to debate and scrutinise it through all its stages. In conclusion, I would be very grateful if the Minister could give some indication on whether this proposal would be given serious consideration by the Government in due course.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, on introducing this debate. I also declare an interest as a co-founder and vice chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Africa. This has been a very important initiative, and we trust that the Government will take its recommendations seriously; indeed, I am sure that they will. I can also, perhaps, echo the thanks extended by the noble Lords, Lord Chidgey, Lord Hughes and others, to all those responsible for the report.
	I would like to add a couple of themes which have not so far been mentioned. "The Other Side Of The Coin" is a brilliant inspiration as a title. Let me take the metaphor a stage further. How can we get beyond the blame game, and ratchet up each other's performance and accountability? Attributing blame, even if it is 50:50, does not matter in one sense. What is the relationship between the failures of the two sides?
	When I was on a CPA delegation to Nigeria recently, we were repeatedly asked when we would get President Abacha's $5 billion back. Now, I do not think that people seriously thought that somewhere in Westminster, or even in EC4, there was $5 billion in somebody's account. There was the perception, however, that that was where the money was and that we could do something directly about it. I will come later to the question of who can do what about what in this field of enforcement.
	I have no doubt that Nigeria has not been suddenly transformed into the social democracy of somewhere such as Sweden. I also echo, however, the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, that it is no justification for any part of Africa to say, "You earn a lot more than we do, and we are justified in demanding and taking for ourselves, out of the bank account, the expatriate lifestyle". That is the way to ruin for us all.
	This points to the problem of developing mutual obligations, which is the theme of the European Council's report on strategic partnership with Africa. The European Select Committee is producing a report, in which I have been involved, on the implementation of the AU-EU idea as a strategic partnership. The right way to proceed is to bypass the blame game, with charges of imperialism and corruption, which are, in a sense, a cul-de-sac, and to take forward more creatively the question of how to raise each other's game.
	Transfer pricing was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hughes and others and, economically, it is probably 10 times more important in terms of loss of income than money laundering and so on. Here, I echo the tributes paid to Transparency International. I am not the greatest fan of single-issue pressure groups, but Transparency International has worked to consistently high standards and it has concentrated on the areas where the focus must be, which I shall now come to.
	How can we bring about improved auditing in the north and the south as well as in Africa? The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, mentioned that some of us tried to push amendments in the Company Law Reform Bill for the dollar, or the pound in this case, and the euro to be followed in all the subsidiaries, but the reply was, "Burdens on business; over-regulation". However, we must acknowledge that there are huge responsibilities. If a company's headquarters are in London that is for the convenience of the company. It will have all the advantages of being in London and all the advantages of being able to adjust its accounts to minimise tax in the higher-tax regimes.
	I then come to the real question on which I want to focus: how can we get more coherence into the international regulatory regime? This is a sine qua non for raising Africa's economic performance—which, incidentally, is absolutely dreadful. Africa's GDP is one-tenth that of Europe, even at the present purchasing power parity. I ask the Minister whether there is a real understanding of the relationship between the international tax treaties, the UN, the OECD and the other bodies in this field. If that were better understood and there were no chink between them, it might be a big step forward.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I echo the warm congratulations expressed by every noble Lord who has taken part in this debate to the All-Party Group on its production of this report. I also congratulate my noble friend not only on participating in the evidence-gathering session but now on bringing it to the attention of the House. It deserves far more thorough examination than we can give it in this short hour, and I hope that when the Government publish their promised response to the 38 recommendations, that will be followed by a debate in government time—preferably before the Summer Recess.
	As my noble friend said, the report concentrates on what the UK should be doing, and it gives credit to the Government for some of the measures that they have already undertaken. I mention, in particular, the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, to which 20 countries are now committed, but the report warns against regarding that as a panacea. Most have not published data on revenue and payments, and some of the 20 are the worst offenders in the Transparency International index of corruption. For example, Equatorial Guinea, which is the third largest producer in sub-Saharan Africa, with $70 billion worth of oil reserves, is almost at the bottom of the league table. Here, the horse has bolted because, as the report makes clear, President Obiang has already plundered the state revenues to the tune of $700 million with the aid of Riggs Bank, as a US Senate inquiry found. It was alleged that some of the money was later transferred into HSBC accounts controlled by Obiang in Luxembourg and Cyprus, but the banking laws in those countries prevented the US authorities pursuing their inquiries. Can the Minister tell us what steps are being taken at EU level to ensure that crooked governments and their agents are unable to shop around Europe for the most secretive banking system—a position that we used to hold but no longer do?
	The extractive industries are not the only activity where corruption siphons off wealth belonging to the people of African countries. Forestry is a sector to which far greater attention should be paid because illegal logging also contributes to global warming, threatening not only Africans but everyone living on the planet. I congratulate the British NGO Global Witness, whose evidence helped to convict Guus Kouwenhoven in The Hague a couple of weeks ago of violating the UN embargo on Liberia. But should we leave it to under-resourced NGOs to detect the misuse of forestry, or should there be, as the report suggests, a forestry transparency initiative as an analogue of the EITI?
	The APPG also points the finger at the construction industry, which it says is highly prone to corruption, and it cites the notorious example of the $8.1 billion LNG plant at Bonny, in Nigeria, where a British solicitor, Jeffrey Tesler, is alleged to have managed a $180 million slush fund provided by the winning consortium, of which a subsidiary of Halliburton, TSKJ, was the leading member. I note that we still deal with Halliburton. We do not decline to do business with it because one of its subsidiaries was alleged to have conducted an illegal operation in Nigeria. Mr Tesler's Gibraltar-based company, Tri-Star, was reported to have received $51 million for these services. To take up the point made by my noble friend Lady Northover about prosecutions, Mr Tesler still operates and has not been had up in this country, although he has been the subject of a French judicial inquiry.
	If what Mr Tesler did was not an offence under our law, it shows that we badly need tighter legislation, which must be matched by similar provisions in the offshore dependencies of the Crown. The APPG is rightly concerned about the delay in moving towards a draft corruption Bill, as my noble friend mentioned, on which a Joint Committee reported nearly two years ago. We now have to move to substantive legislation, which must cover the new recommendations by the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering and the Third EU Money Laundering Directive. It has to be implemented in any case by December 2007, but the APPG is looking for much more prompt action. Clearly we will be unable to fit it into this timetable, but it must be given priority in the next Session. I hope that the noble Baroness will undertake to support my noble friend Lord Chidgey's Bill, which if it goes through with Hugh Bayley's Bill in another place, could be passed very quickly into law.
	Finally, the report mentions the need to encourage ratification of the African Convention against Corruption, to which only 12 of the 53 AU member states have signed up. But it is far more important that states fully understand the commitment and are prepared to implement it robustly, than merely putting their name to it. If the AU were able to offer member states a consultancy service on how to build the capacity and the mechanisms needed to implement the convention, it would be a step in the right direction. The Commission for Africa suggested that Governments should draw up comprehensive capacity-building strategies, and the G8 said that first there should be early ratification of the convention, and secondly, that discussions should start on mechanisms to ensure implementation. That is something with which the United Kingdom, together with other states, could help the African Union to help African states.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I, too, add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, on securing this important debate on the APPG report. I pay tribute, too, to Lawrence Cockcroft and the group who were the advisers for this report.
	The opening paragraph of chapter three sets out depressing problems in no uncertain terms. The noble Lords, Lord Chidgey and Lord St. John of Bletso, both said:
	"The World Bank estimates that US$1 trillion is paid in bribes each year globally".
	That is on top of an,
	"unknown figure for embezzlement of public funds, of the theft of public assets, by corrupt officials".
	Of course, we must not forget to include the estimated US$1.5 trillion of "tainted procurement" or the,
	"unquantified volume of fraud within the private sector".
	I appreciate the APPG's focus on Africa. Trevor Royle of the Sunday Herald said:
	"For far too long Africa and corruption have been the gin and tonic of the continent's political affairs. Add a little ice and lemon in the shape of bribes and pocket-lining and the cocktail is complete".
	As your Lordships have said, corruption is unfortunately a problem that affects not only Africa but significant other areas of the world—some often closer to home than we think. It is a problem that pervades all sectors of society. It is no wonder that this destruction of integrity is considered the single greatest obstacle to global development. The statistics on the cost of corruption are most upsetting. However, their costs reach well beyond monetary terms. Corruption can act as a glass ceiling for those trying to pull themselves out of poverty, reducing a country's annual growth by up to 4 per cent and tax revenues, if any are made, by 50 per cent.
	Assuming that the country in question is not also subject to civil war, an environment, which I believe only breeds and encourages the infection that we are discussing, it is always the public services that are overpriced and underperforming, if available at all, owing to the amount of graft in the systems—the very services that the poorest need most.
	Kenya has been a much-quoted example of where corruption permeates to the highest ministerial level. The outlook is dim. Foreign investment is discouraged and domestic growth retarded. These are not the precursors that countries need to meet their millennium development goals.
	This is a timely debate, with the arrival of the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill last Friday. It will enable us to debate fully the need for transparency in the aid process, and the effectiveness of both our aid programmes. Aid goes some way to addressing recommendation 6 of the AAPPG. I look forward to those debates.
	The report also picks up on issues continually raised by organisations such as Global Witness: the plight of illegal natural resource extraction and the corruption and human rights issues linked with it—known as "conflict demons", "conflict timber" and "conflict oil"—were discussed by my noble friend Lord Astor in a recent Unstarred Question. As such, I will not repeat the details. Suffice it to say that if we are to preach transparency, good governance and accountability, it is often a good idea to start at home. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, rightly mentioned that we should crack down on UK companies involved in corruption abroad, be it selling illegally logged flooring, or companies providing bribes for work bids in Africa.
	Beyond Global Witness's specific recommendations regarding natural resource industry, Transparency International criticised the Government in 2004 for not establishing an effective supervisory regime to regulate those who provide services to trusts and unlimited companies. What steps have Her Majesty's Government taken to address these concerns, and what assessment has been made of their success? In getting our own house in order, what steps have Her Majesty's Government taken since the release of this report three months ago to ensure that the Crown dependencies and overseas territories adhere to improving their own standards on corruption and money laundering? Will the Minister stand up to the report's accusation of,
	"a lack of political will at the highest levels to take a lead in fighting global corruption"?
	In the short time available for a huge and complex subject, I beg your Lordships' indulgence, as I have only been able to touch on a few of the recommendations. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to at least the seven headline recommendations, and inform us when a government response will be made, in full, to the 38 recommendations put forward. After all, the real losers, of course, are the ordinary hard-working people we are trying to help.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, for securing today's debate and giving us an opportunity to discuss the very fine report from the Africa All-Party Parliamentary Group, The Other Side of the Coin. I am delighted that it has been so well received. In fact, this evening feels rather like a meeting of the AAPPG.
	The report of the Commission for Africa began with an Igbo proverb:
	"Not to know is bad. Not to wish to know is worse".
	In Africa, in international institutions, and certainly in the UK, we know there is a huge global problem relating to corruption. We know that, and I quote my right honourable friend the Prime Minister,
	"The corrosive effect of corruption undermines all efforts to improve governance and foster development".
	Most importantly, this Government accept their responsibility to support African Governments in their battle against corruption. I must refute the allegation made by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, about the lack of political will. The Government have shown extraordinary political will in their fight for Africa and against corruption in Africa. It is also good to hear reports from the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, that the tide is turning in some countries in Africa. However, I tend to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that the situation is extremely depressing.
	The UK took a lead in ensuring that addressing poverty in Africa was a priority during its G8 presidency, and that G8 leaders made commitments to address corruption at the Gleneagles summit. As noble Lords have clearly demonstrated, the consequences of international and domestic corruption for poor people in poor countries are devastating. The costs to exchequers are extraordinary, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, as are the human costs, but it also creates a blight on investment and public sector development and holds back economic growth. That is why DfID supports a wide range of governance reforms to prevent, detect and take action against corruption. It is why in his speech, "Development Beyond Aid", at Chatham House on 23 February 2006, my right honourable colleague the Secretary of State for International Development highlighted global corruption as one of the key themes of the upcoming White Paper on international development.
	The recommendations of the AAPPG fall into three broad categories: those where the Government are already working towards implementation; those where action plans are currently being developed and will be announced in the near future; and those where significant further work is required to determine how best to address the issues. The vast majority of the recommendations fall into the first two categories, and we warmly welcome the way in which the report raises awareness and provides an impetus for action.
	Sadly, it is not possible in this all-too-short debate to comment on all recommendations in detail, so I will concentrate on the six headline recommendations and answer as many questions as possible. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that there should be a longer debate is a matter for the usual channels, but I would support that.
	The first recommendation calls on the Government rigorously to enforce existing laws and sanctions against international bribery and money laundering. We have strengthened our enforcement framework and, I assure noble Lords, that we are firmly committed to enforcing those laws. The Serious Fraud Office now leads on vetting, monitoring and investigating allegations of overseas bribery. The Crown Prosecution Service has been restructured and now includes a fraud unit, staffed by specialist prosecutors, which is likely to be in charge of future files involving overseas bribery.
	Like the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, we agree that we need to do more, but I stress that currently there are cases moving through the long and complex legal processes. For example, Joshua Dariye, the governor of Plateau State in Nigeria, had his UK-based assets seized in December last year. We are making efforts to return them to Nigeria and his appeal is in progress. Indeed, there are 35 overseas bribery allegations currently being vetted to see if there is sufficient evidence to open a case and there are 13 active investigations in England and Wales and one in Scotland.
	The second headline recommendation is to bring a new anti-corruption Bill before Parliament before the end of this year. The Government agree that the law of bribery is in need of reform. That is why, in December last year, we issued a consultation paper setting out options for reform. Most of the respondents seem to have taken differing views, but shortly we hope to publish a response covering all the comments received.
	Bribery is a hard crime to pin down in a way that balances the interests of all stakeholders, as previous attempts to reform the law have shown. The AAPPG's views will be taken fully into account along with the views of other stakeholders, and of course the views expressed by noble Lords this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, and my noble friend Lady Whitaker mentioned the Bill recently introduced by my honourable friend Hugh Bayley in another place. Of course, that is being studied closely and it will be taken account of in the Bill to which the Government remain committed. These are complex issues and we have to get them right; we have to ensure that the Bill is workable in the courts, which is why the process is perhaps taking longer than many noble Lords would wish.
	I am grateful for the offer, or the suggestion, from the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, that he should table a Private Member's Bill in the Lords. I can assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to introducing a Bill. They are carefully considering a plethora of views that have been presented. We want to continue building a consensus around a new Bill. However, ultimately it will be up to the noble Lord whether he brings forward his own Bill.
	The third recommendation calls on the Government to implement the third European Union money laundering directive before December 2007. The Government are confident that we will implement the directive by December 2007, and a consultation document on our proposed implementation will be published shortly. The directive provides for a co-ordinated EU-wide approach to tackling money laundering and terrorist financing, and requires banks to perform enhanced due diligence for non-domestic politically exposed persons. I am pleased to report that UK banks are already taking steps to implement these requirements.
	My noble friend Lord Lea spoke of the international framework. As the report made clear, this is a global problem which requires a global response. That is why we are working within the context of the G8 and OECD. The context works. For years, we advocated in the OECD development assistance committee that development agencies must influence their governments, and that is now widely accepted. A couple of weeks ago, in the same committee, we took a strong lead in advocating that all donors try to influence their governments to address supply-side corruption, and we trust that that will work in the same way.
	In relation to international tax treaties, the OECD has recently started an initiative on them, and I will seek to find out more information for my noble friend.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, suggested that we should work with the African Union so that it can provide assistance and guidance to those African countries that wish to sign up to and implement the African Union convention against corruption and the UN convention. That seems to be a very sensible idea, and I will certainly take it back to the department. However, it might also be something that we should discuss with colleagues in the European Parliament in view of the fact that the AU receives substantial funding from the EU.
	The fourth recommendation was that we,
	"Ensure that Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories deal with corruption . . . as robustly as the UK",
	is problematic in tone. That is because it does not fully recognise the complexity of the constitutional arrangements between the UK and those territories. The UK overseas territories are aware of the threats posed by money laundering and corruption and the risks they carry for the reputation of their economies. The Government will continue to encourage them to counter those threats and ensure that they have robust legislation in place, in particular on financial regulations, as well as adequate enforcement capacity, and to put relevant international agreements into force. Where possible, we will offer practical help.
	The fifth recommendation calls for Government to,
	"Report to Parliament annually on international development spending".
	As noble Lords will be aware, Tom Clarke's Bill, which I am delighted to say has completed its passage through the other place, will require us to report not only on aid, but also on how other issues affect development. I look forward to the Bill's Second Reading on 29 June when it will be introduced by my noble friend Lady Whitaker.
	The sixth recommendation calls for the appointment of an anti-corruption champion. We fully agree that there is a need to improve policy coherence between the large number of government departments and agencies whose work is associated with international anti-corruption and money laundering. We further agree that there should be clear responsibility for co-ordinating policy coherence and implementation across Whitehall. The strategy for realising this recommendation is currently being discussed by Ministers, but I am optimistic.
	Several noble Lords quite rightly raised the issue of China. China has ratified the UN Convention Against Corruption and that, together with domestic auditing reforms, shows that China is interested in discussing good governance. The Government are committed to joining international partners in a dialogue on corruption.
	In relation to the Company Law Reform Bill, I will respond in writing and send a copy of my letter to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate.
	The matter of Nigeria and the Abacha money was raised by my noble friend Lord Lea. No money has been returned to Nigeria from the UK, although some assets are currently restrained under a civil order. It is unlikely that significant funds remain here. Evidence supports the view that the UK was used as a transit route, rather than as a deposit, for most of the money. The UK stands ready to assist any international partner, including Nigeria, with requests for mutual legal assistance in accordance with our domestic law and in line with our international obligations. There is a UK initiative to provide mutual legal assistance training to Nigerian personnel to assist them in making requests, and the Home Office played a leading role in a recent training seminar in Abuja.
	In relation to the case of a solicitor alleged to have carried out a corrupt act in Nigeria, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on individual cases. The Government's consultation paper of December 2005 made a proposal to enhance the powers of the Serious Fraud Office to assist it in investigating allegations of bribery overseas so that they can be cleared up.
	The AAPPG is to be warmly congratulated on the publication of The Other Side of the Coin. It draws attention to the scale of the challenges, makes a set of complex issues accessible and will act as a catalyst for further change.
	The Government's response to the report will of course be published in the near future. I regret that it has taken some time, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, acknowledged it is a cross-department responsibility. The Other Side of the Coin has already been influential in shaping the global corruption aspects of the White Paper. I am confident that many of the concerns expressed today will be alleviated when the full extent of the Government's commitment on those issues is made known. Like the AAPPG and noble Lords who have participated today, the Government remain committed to Africa and to tackling corruption, which is a critical obstacle to its development.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I return without apology to an amendment I tabled in Grand Committee, which relates to vehicles being used for business purposes,
	"by no more than one person at a time".
	If we set aside for one moment all the arguments for and against the smoke-free provisions of the Bill and simply focus on our duty to create workable and credible legislation, I worry greatly that if we are not careful we will succeed in making the law under this clause look like an ass.
	To prohibit smoking in a business vehicle being used by two or more people at the same time has an obvious logic, if we take as read the scientific advice about passive smoking. Some noble Lords may disagree with that advice, but, if one takes it as a given, the logic is there. The logic starts to look thin where we try to argue that someone driving a lorry or farm tractor on his own should be prohibited from smoking because the risk that someone subsequently taking over may inhale his second-hand smoke.
	To my mind the case for carrying the law this far is extremely thin for two reasons. First, it ignores the substantial dispersal effect on smoke when opening the door of a lorry or tractor cab and letting ordinary air in. To say that there is a potentially lethal health risk from someone getting into the cab after the previous driver has been smoking there seems to me to be ridiculous. If there is any residual smoke present it will disappear rapidly. It is doubly ridiculous to make no allowance whatever for the possibility of there being a substantial interval between one driver leaving the cab and another getting in. We understand that the regulations will make that consideration irrelevant, whereas simple common sense would say that it is highly relevant.
	In making that point, I do not deny in the slightest that the smell of stale tobacco smoke in upholstery and so on may linger in the cab if someone has been smoking there. But, as I said in Grand Committee, we must be careful to distinguish things that pose a genuine public health risk from things that are merely unpleasant. We are not here to legislate against what is unpleasant.
	The second reason why the case is thin for banning smoking by lone drivers is the impossibility of effective enforcement. This clause as a whole carries with it huge problems in enforcement, but the problems are magnified several-fold when we examine this issue with any care. If two people are travelling in a lorry cab and one of them is smoking, an obvious offence is being committed within the terms of the clause. If a lone lorry driver is smoking, he is committing no offence if the vehicle is only used by him and by no one else. But he is committing an offence if the vehicle is used by another person at other times. Are we really to imagine that this distinction is one which enforcement officers will be able to verify on the spot? How will an enforcement officer feel confident about issuing a penalty notice to a driver who is smoking if that driver asserts that he is always the sole user of the vehicle? I suggest that it would be virtually impossible and that the enforcement officer would be put into a completely invidious position, which he should not be put in in the first place.
	When I tabled this amendment in Grand Committee, the Minister did not produce any proper counter arguments He merely asserted that where one driver follows another and the first one has been smoking, the second one would be exposed to the risks of second-hand smoke. I respectfully suggest that that answer ignores reality and common sense.
	The Minister also referred to the response from the Road Haulage Association to last year's consultation. The association advised that,
	"most of our members do have smoking policies that prohibit smoking in shared vehicles".
	I do not seek to discount or belittle that reply in the very least, but it is not a basis for arguing that smoking on your own in a business vehicle should become a criminal offence. Rather it is an argument for saying that activities which are merely a nuisance should be dealt with by means of private codes of practice.
	The Minister will, I am sure, seek to argue, as he did before, that when someone has been smoking in a vehicle, noxious substances containing carcinogens could still be present when another person gets into it. That is the essence of his justification. I am saying what I said before, that this Bill is not designed—and never was—to protect people from all possible exposure to second-hand smoke, no matter how tiny. There is, or there should be, a common-sense cut-off point in these matters. I suggest that the cut-off point has been drawn in the wrong place and I sincerely hope that, even now, the Minister will agree to think again. I beg to move.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, my amendment to leave out Clause 5 has been grouped with the noble Earl's amendment. I, of course, agree with everything that he said. The clause should be left out completely because it will be virtually impossible to enforce even if people know what is supposed to be enforced, which will be very difficult when one reads this clause.
	There was a lengthy and somewhat amusing debate, at times, on the clause in the Grand Committee. The clause enables Ministers to introduce regulations making vehicles smoke free, which they intend to do. I do not wish to steal the Minister's thunder but perhaps I can précis what the Minister said about the regulations that the Government intend to make—that is, that business vehicles will be smoke free, thus providing, it is claimed, consistency with the smoke-free provisions that apply to enclosed and substantially enclosed places But, as the Minister said, the vast majority of public transport is already smoke free. Therefore one could ask why this legislation is necessary.
	The Minister also said that it is his intention that private vehicles will be exempted, including rental vehicles, it being a matter for passengers in those cars to decide whether they want to travel with someone who is smoking. But, as we have already heard from the noble Earl, it will be very difficult to define that. I simply do not know how it is going to be defined, let alone enforced.
	This is a very sweeping clause. It permits regulations making any vehicle smoke free. Ministers' current intentions may be to confine regulations to vehicles used for business, but those intentions and regulations could change at any time—that is the whole problem—and of course we are very restricted and constricted when matters are put before us by order.
	What seem to be the present intentions in detail? Where a car is used by only that person for work, it will not be smoke free, according to the Minister. However, vehicles used as a place of work or business vehicles will be smoke free unless the vehicle is only ever used and owned by one person. I do not know whether I have got that right. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that.
	We have been told that a shared vehicle would have to be smoke-free at all times. The Minister cites in support of his proposal that the Road Haulage Association has advised that most of its member companies already have smoking policies that prohibit smoking in shared vehicles. The job is apparently already being done, so why is it necessary to lay it down in this sort of legislation?
	Your Lordships may be confused by that explanation of the Government's intentions and it may pose questions, as it did in Grand Committee. When is a vehicle enclosed or substantially enclosed? What is the precise position of a privately owned vehicle that the owner sometimes uses for business purposes when he may carry passengers? I could go on, but the Minister will probably tell me to await the regulations that will provide the details. As I have already said, that is not good enough. These matters should be in the Bill because they are so important. I will not refer again to the report of the Economic Affairs Committee as we debated its findings earlier today. But that committee said that the failure to consider these matters in this and other parts of the Bill had resulted in the introduction of a policy that appears to demonstrate a disproportionate response to the problem. I entirely agree with that.
	I have made inquiries of all the major databases on this topic and I have not found one single piece of research on the health risks of second-hand smoke in vehicles. I should be grateful if the Minister could point me to any evidence that he has that I have not been able to find. I have a feeling that the Minister's response will be to claim that components of second-hand smoke continue to linger in the air long after smoking has taken place. Well that could be said about anything. It could be said about vehicle fumes, for example, which, as we have heard from the Deputy Prime Minister, cause 20,000 deaths every year. We must take this matter very seriously and try to find out just what is going to happen.
	The claim that exposure to second-hand smoke in a vehicle represents a serious risk to the non-smoker is implausible. It is not proven. There is no scientific evidence that there is a risk and it appears that no one has bothered to waste time undertaking an obviously pointless exercise. It is pointless, because if one is travelling in a vehicle, one is inevitably travelling behind some other vehicle and the emissions from that vehicle will be far more dangerous—probably 100 times more so—than the cigarette being smoked. Clause 5 is illogical. If the evidence is absent then the Government's own risk policy guidelines are not fulfilled. It follows that Clause 5 offends another of the Government's guidelines, which is proportionality.
	What concerns me here, and what concerned me in Grand Committee, is enforcement. How on earth will this be enforced? We never got a proper answer to that question. We understand that the enforcement authorities will be the local authorities. Where on earth will they get the qualified staff to enforce this on thousands of miles of motorway, ordinary roads, and country lanes? With 35 million vehicles, how on earth will they do it? The fact is that they cannot. That is something they dream of; they think that it will be self-enforcing. Well, it will not be self-enforcing.
	We have a ban on using mobile telephones in cars and other vehicles, yet you hardly ever see a car or lorry without the driver using a mobile phone.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I, too, agree with everything the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said and essentially with everything the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, said, which is why I added my name to Amendment No. 11. I must make one correction, however. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that the Deputy Prime Minister had said that 20,000 people a year die from exposure to traffic fumes. The Deputy Prime Minister said it six years ago, backed up by his department. Actually, 24,000 people a year die prematurely from exposure to traffic fumes and industrial pollution. That vastly exceeds the most exaggerated estimate of the number of people who die each year from passive smoking.
	I should like to give an example of how illogical the clause is. Let us take two small plumbing firms. The first is a one-man band, and the one man in question is a smoker. He will be allowed to smoke wherever and whenever he wants in his white van—or a van sprayed any colour of the rainbow. The rival firm is a two-man partnership, but both partners are smokers. They both smoke, let us say, roughly 20 a day. However, they are not allowed to smoke in the firm's van, white or otherwise, even if they are not travelling together, unless the Government are prepared to accept the noble Earl's amendment. For example, if the arrangement is that Bill goes out on calls on even-numbered days of the month leaving Jack to take care of the office, the telephone and so forth and the position is reversed on odd-numbered days of the month, it would still be theoretically illegal, although of course totally unenforceable since the Government appear to be claiming that tobacco smoke is so deadly—it is not only tobacco smoke because, as we learnt in Grand Committee, herbal cigarettes are now deemed by the Government to be almost as deadly—that it would poison the car for days afterwards rather like sarin in the Tokyo underground system.
	If that were really so, one would have to ban smoking in hire cars. Firms which rent out cars may request their clients not to smoke, and some do, but most do not. However, they would have to ban smoking in those cars and even in hotel rooms, because hotel rooms are much less well ventilated than cars. As the noble Earl said, cars are automatically ventilated when people open the doors and windows.
	The noble Earl, Lord Howe, talked about the necessity of workable and credible legislation. The utterly disproportionate overkill represented by the clause as it stands brings the law into ridicule and contempt, which cannot be desirable from anyone's point of view.

Lord Warner: My Lords, the point is very simple. If I were allowed to continue with my peroration, I would be able to explain it to noble Lords. The point is simply that if there is more than one person sharing a vehicle, an employer would not necessarily know whether the second person was always going to be a smoker. The point here is that we are trying to protect people who are going to share that vehicle with another person who may be a smoker. We are trying to cut out the risk to the other person. The arguments are exactly the same in relation to other enclosed workplaces. It is just that the workplace is mobile in the case of a vehicle and not mobile in other circumstances. If I may be allowed to go on to develop the arguments further, smoking will be permitted in vehicles that are for the sole use of the driver and are not used for work purposes by anyone else, either as a driver or a passenger, as I said in Grand Committee. This is totally consistent with the provisions for places of work in Clause 2(2)(a) of the Bill.
	A number of noble Lords have raised the question of whether or not people are at risk. Second-hand smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals in the form of particles and gases. Some of these have marked irritant properties and some 50 are known or suspected human carcinogens, including heavy metals and substances known to be reproductive toxins. The World Health Organisation has classified tobacco smoke as a known human carcinogen. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has classified environmental tobacco smoke as a class A human carcinogen, with asbestos, arsenic, benzene and radon gas in the same category. Most important, some 85 per cent of second-hand smoke consists of invisible, odourless gases—a fact that does not seem to be well recognised. We believe that we are being responsible in giving people protection against exposure to this. We believe that it is right to give workers who share a vehicle that same protection against second-hand smoke exposure as we are giving to people who share other sorts of workplaces. Noble Lords can see that the Government's intentions with respect to smoke-free vehicles are entirely consistent with our approach towards smoke-free public places and workplaces. That is the essence of why we believe we need this clause.
	Perhaps I may turn now to Amendment No. 10, because much of what I have been saying, as robustly as I can, has dealt with Amendment No. 11. While we do not agree with the intention behind Amendment No. 10, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I also have to point out that it is completely unnecessary, as the effect of it could, if we so wished, be delivered under the current drafting. The amendment seeks to ensure that the regulations can make provision for a vehicle that is being used by no more than one person at a time to be smoke-free. While we do not agree with this proposition, the way in which Clause 1 is drafted already enables us to do that. Subsection (1) provides a power to make regulations providing for vehicles to be smoke-free, and subsection (2)(b) makes it clear that this power can be used to specify the circumstances in which they are to be smoke-free. So although we do not agree with the intention behind the amendment, even if we did, it would be unnecessary.
	The reason why we do not agree with the intention behind Amendment No. 10 is quite simple. We know, for the reasons that I have explained, that second-hand smoke can linger, often for extended periods, in the enclosed space. We believe that giving people the protection that I have outlined is absolutely essential. I say again that we have no intention to require private vehicles to be smoke-free through this legislation.
	The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, made a considerable number of points on enforcement. Let me be clear: enforcement requires signage. It will be for the owner of a vehicle used as a workplace by more than one person to ensure that signage is in place. It will therefore be clear, as signage is required, when smoking is not allowed. Enforcement is therefore, I would suggest, not as complex as I think the noble Lord has suggested. We know that where smoking has been banned in other countries there has been a good deal of compliance. I am not sure why we do not think that there may not be the same compliance when this legislation is on the statute book. As for transparency and consistency, it seems to the Government that treating vehicles in exactly the same away as other workplaces is entirely fair and proportionate.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I did not want to interrupt the Minister when he was in full flow. However, he based his argument on the idea of protecting workers—by which I think he means those who are employed and receive a wage or salary—and that is not an unreasonable objective. However, he said nothing about the position of those who are not employed but are partners in a firm, people such as those whom I instanced in my example. Why should they need protection from each other? If they are both in a position of seniority and are of a like mind, why on earth should they not smoke if they both want to?
	Secondly, the Minister claims that dangerous substances remain in the air in a vehicle long after the last smoker has left it. Well, for how long? Is it one hour, or two or three, or 10 hours? Is it really to be believed that a car which has been returned to base, as it were, at 6 pm one evening is still poisonous to the next person who climbs into it at 8 am or 9 am o'clock the following day? Perhaps the noble Lord is right, but I should like a little more evidence.

Earl Howe: My Lords, this has been an important and necessary debate. Indeed, it would have been extraordinary if we had passed over the issue of vehicles without any comment. I am particularly grateful for the support that I received for my amendment from the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Stoddart, and other noble Lords.
	The Government seem to have resorted to arbitrary demarcation lines rather than come forward with more considered proposals recognising that there are degrees of risk. In other contexts, they have acknowledged that there are differing degrees of risk. For example, in the earlier amendment on theatrical performances, or in their welcome amendment to Clause 4, which acknowledges the same principle. I see my amendment as being much in the same vein as both those.
	I was not convinced by the Minister's reply to my concerns about enforcement, and I took careful note of the powerful points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, on that. Enforcement will be extremely problematic in vehicles, and we are likely to see widespread flouting of the law as a result, which is not an appealing prospect. I take heart from the support that I received from other noble Lords, and had we not reached this point in the evening I might have wished to test the opinion of the House. As it is, that would serve no useful purpose. I will reflect on what the Minister has said, and I hope that he in turn will reflect a little on the points made in the debate. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, the amendment is clear; it is about signage. It proposes that those places that must show signs under the Bill just need to show the international no-smoking symbol.
	I asked the Minister in Committee to check the situation in Europe, and I imagine that he has that information to hand. It will be interesting to hear how much signage is required elsewhere in the world. Secondly, I asked him in Committee to check the situation in those countries that have dual languages or large ethnic-minority communities in certain parts, and whether there are any requirements for language provision. I am looking forward to hearing the answer to that as well.
	For 20 years I was actively involved in the advertising world, for most of that time in a pretty senior capacity. The one thing that you learn about communication is that the more notices you put up, the less likely they are to be read. I have looked at the provisions in the consultation document, such as providing a telephone number. We all know what happens when you ring a telephone number out of hours; and most people would be in a pub or a restaurant so they would presumably be ringing out of hours. They would get an answering machine, they would have to push several buttons, and they would not reach anyone at the end of the line. The whole thing is an absolute farce. If you have a major complaint to make, you ring during office hours and you make it directly.
	I see no objection to having a notice on all doors; I can understand why that provision is there. Frankly, the rest is totally unnecessary. Unless the Minister can give your Lordships clear evidence that the rest of Europe has shown a great need for the plethora of signs proposed, it seems much more sensible to accept my amendment. The Minister would find praise from all parts of the country—smokers and non-smokers— not least from people in the trade who would have to stump up the money to provide all the signs. For once, he might just be a hero. I am looking forward to a positive response to the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I have to say, I am feeling quite heroic, having had two victories in the Division Lobby this afternoon. Whether I shall appear heroic to the noble Lord, I am not too sure.
	This grouping addresses amendments on no-smoking signs. Clause 6 ensures that no-smoking signs will designate smoke-free areas in premises, additional smoke-free places and vehicles. We do not intend for our requirements to result in an overabundance of signs, but signage will allow clear communication with smokers, so that it is clear to them where smoking is not permitted, and where they may therefore be breaking the law. The signs will also make it clear to non-smokers where they have a right to expect a smoke-free environment.
	Experience in other countries has shown that signs are a crucial part of implementing and enforcing smoke-free legislation. If we are introducing a new offence for smoking in a no-smoking area, or allowing someone to smoke in smoke-free premises, we must ensure that people know where they might be committing an offence. This might be especially important for foreign visitors, unfamiliar with our smoke-free laws. Signage, I understand, is required in Norway, Italy, Ireland and Scotland. But I am happy to make sure that full details are provided to the noble Lords and others.
	These amendments appear to demonstrate that the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Naseby, is concerned about the Government introducing unnecessary signage requirements. I stress that our intention is completely the opposite: we wish to make signage requirements as light-touch as possible. We do not want this to be a significant burden on businesses.
	Our plans for signage will be included in public consultation on regulations that will be published shortly. However, our broad intentions are that signs in smoke-free premises should include the international smoke-free sign and a brief message stating that the premises are smoke-free by law. We believe that clear wording on signs is necessary in premises as, for the first time, smoking will be prohibited by law in virtually all enclosed, and substantially enclosed, public places and workplaces. Some no-smoking signage currently exists in premises, but it is largely advisory. It is important to ensure that people know it will be against the law to smoke in these places.
	In vehicles, however, we do not think that the additional message will necessarily be needed, as it is already the norm for most public vehicles to be smoke-free, often by legislation. As I have said, signage provisions within the regulations will be subject to consultation shortly.
	I wish to reassure your Lordships that the Department of Health wants to do everything it can to support businesses in the lead-up to implementation. We will make signs that meet regulatory requirements readily available free of charge. For example, we intend to provide these signs with guidance to businesses on implementing the legislation, to put downloadable copies on our website and to keep stocks to send out to businesses that request them. I would say that, by including powers to specify signage requirements in regulations, the requirements can be changed. There may be some point in time, once smoke-free legislation has firmly bedded in, when all that is needed on no-smoking signs is the internationally recognised no-smoking symbol.
	If we accept this amendment, however, we would lock this requirement on to the Bill, rather than providing the necessary flexibility to specify the most suitable signage. Given the importance of signage in communicating and enforcing smoke-free legislation, together with the benefits of maintaining regulatory flexibility in this area, the Government cannot accept these amendments. Although not heroic, it is a fair statement of why the Government believe we need signage to be provided for—in accordance with the regulations that we will be consulting on—on a light-touch basis and with as much help as we can give businesses.

Earl Howe: My Lords, Amendment No. 16 returns us to the question that we debated in Grand Committee of whether the perceived utility and benefit of having no-smoking signs displayed in all public buildings, workplaces, pubs, bars and restaurants are likely to remain constant or whether, over time, they are likely to diminish. I suggest that the latter is very much the case. Indeed, if we accept that there may be an initial case for signage of this kind—although personally I do not—we should also recognise that after a period of time the burdens on business that it imposes will almost certainly no longer be justifiable.
	The Government's arguments for making signage a legal requirement are that it will inform the public and make life easier for visitors to our country; it will help pub and club managers to avoid disputes on their premises; and it will help with enforcement. Frankly, we could apply those arguments to any area of the law we chose. The speed limit on motorways is 70 mph but we do not put up notices every few hundred yards reminding drivers of that. We do not put up speed-limit notices at all on most dual or single carriageways. Drivers are expected to know what the legal speed limit is. It might make life easier for tourists if we had such notices; it might help with resolving disputes; and it might help with enforcement. But, generally speaking, we accept that everyone should be aware of the law and that, correspondingly, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Signs of this sort are seen as being neither necessary nor appropriate.
	When the Bill was in its original form and it distinguished between pubs where smoking would still be allowed and pubs where it would not be allowed, there was certainly some merit in the idea of signage. Otherwise, anyone entering a pub could not have been expected to know what kind of pub it was. A similar argument applied to clubs. That argument falls away with the Bill as it now stands. All pubs, workplaces and enclosed places open to the public will be smoke-free. The situation is therefore very much simpler.
	I realise from our debates in Grand Committee that I am unlikely to persuade the Minister to do away with Clause 6 altogether. But, if I were in his shoes, I would do so without hesitation. The proposal is simply insane over-regulation, which takes no account whatever of the costs and burden to business. It does not begin to encourage people to stop and think about whether those burdens are proportionate to the risk of what the signage is trying to prevent, and it takes nannying to as yet unplumbed realms. We are talking not just of pubs, but of every public building in the land, and a great many types of vehicle used for business purposes.
	Pubs will be particularly hard hit, and I wonder whether the Minister is aware of the pub signage requirements that are currently in force. A pub by law must currently display its premises licence, details of the designated premises supervisor, price lists, weights and measures statutory notices, fire exits and tobacco signs on cigarette machines. It will shortly have to display signs on gaming machines. It is encouraged under codes of good practice to display signs about proof of age, drink-drive warnings, gaming machine warnings to minors, and warnings about the size of the head on keg beer. It is recommended good practice to display notices about avoiding rape, minding your head on the doorframe, minding your step, minding that no one spikes your drink, minding that no one steals your handbag, making clear that the taking of drugs is not tolerated on the premises, publicising crime stoppers, local taxi services, the time when the juke box is switched off, and requesting customers to please leave quietly.
	The list of pub signage is already very long. In aggregate it is exceedingly burdensome. To add another category of sign to those that are legal requirements will make the burdens even greater. If we multiply that across all offices, factories, public buildings and commercial vehicles, I do not think that the Government have demonstrated that it is a worthwhile burden for the business community to shoulder. That is why I am proposing that a sunset provision should be applied to Clause 6.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am following the noble Earl's argument very closely and with enormous interest. This is the first admission from the Opposition Front Bench that this law is permanent and is not up for amendment if by any chance there were a change of government at the next election, or the one after. Is the noble Earl saying that he now accepts, possibly with our votes earlier here today, that this law is here permanently and will not be amended? If so, I welcome that, and it presumably underlines the logic of what he is saying about the need for signs not to be there for ever.

Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 7 [Offence of smoking in smoke-free place]:

Lord Warner: moved Amendments Nos. 17 to 18:
	Page 5, line 33, at end insert "(including premises which by virtue of regulations under section 3(4A) are smoke-free except in relation to performers)"
	Page 5, line 36, at end insert—
	"( ) But a person who smokes in premises which are not smoke-free in relation to performers by virtue of regulations under section 3(4A) does not commit an offence if he is such a performer."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 8 [Offence of failing to prevent smoking in smoke-free place]:

Lord Warner: moved Amendment No. 21:
	Page 6, line 32, at end insert "(and references to smoke-free premises include premises which by virtue of regulations under section 3(4A) are smoke-free except in relation to performers)"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 13 [Power to amend age for sale of tobacco etc]:

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.